Factors Influencing Medical Prescribers' Acceptance of Pharmacists’ Recommendations in Non-hospitalized Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

IF 4.2 2区 医学 Q2 GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY Journal of the American Medical Directors Association Pub Date : 2025-01-23 DOI:10.1016/j.jamda.2024.105462
Noah C. Ramsey BPharm(Hons), Gregory M. Peterson PhD, Corinne Mirkazemi PhD, Mohammed S. Salahudeen PhD
{"title":"Factors Influencing Medical Prescribers' Acceptance of Pharmacists’ Recommendations in Non-hospitalized Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis","authors":"Noah C. Ramsey BPharm(Hons),&nbsp;Gregory M. Peterson PhD,&nbsp;Corinne Mirkazemi PhD,&nbsp;Mohammed S. Salahudeen PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.jamda.2024.105462","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>To investigate the rate of, and factors affecting, acceptance of pharmacists’ recommendations by medical prescribers following medication reviews conducted in non-hospitalized older adults.</div></div><div><h3>Design</h3><div>A systematic review and meta-analysis with meta-regression.</div></div><div><h3>Setting and Participants</h3><div>Older adults (mean aged ≥55 years) residing in the community or in aged care facilities (ie, non-hospitalized) who had received an individualized medication review by a pharmacist.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We searched 3 databases (MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science) from 2000 until May 2024, and included studies that reported the acceptance rates of pharmacists’ recommendations by prescribers, either by recommendation type (eg, initiation, cessation, dose change) or the reason for the recommendation (eg, drug-related problem identified). JBI tools were used to assess the methodological quality, and a meta-analysis with meta-regression was performed.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>There were 21 studies included in the review: 13 studies in the community setting, and 8 in aged care facilities. The acceptance rates of the pharmacists’ recommendations ranged from 42% to 93%, and the implementation rates ranged from 27% to 88%. The setting where the pharmacist conducted the review was found to be a significant determinant in the acceptance of recommendations in the meta-regression model (<em>P</em> = .021), with the highest acceptance and implementation rates reported when pharmacists were integrated into general medical practices (79%; 95% CI, 52%–97%).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions and Implications</h3><div>The acceptance of pharmacists’ recommendations following the conduct of medication reviews was highly variable. Multiple factors appear to influence acceptance rates, particularly the setting where the pharmacist conducted the review and the level of collaboration between the pharmacist and prescriber. Future research should explore targeted strategies to improve collaboration and communication between pharmacists and prescribers, such as the integration of pharmacists into general medical practices and aged care facilities.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":17180,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American Medical Directors Association","volume":"26 3","pages":"Article 105462"},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American Medical Directors Association","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1525861024008855","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives

To investigate the rate of, and factors affecting, acceptance of pharmacists’ recommendations by medical prescribers following medication reviews conducted in non-hospitalized older adults.

Design

A systematic review and meta-analysis with meta-regression.

Setting and Participants

Older adults (mean aged ≥55 years) residing in the community or in aged care facilities (ie, non-hospitalized) who had received an individualized medication review by a pharmacist.

Methods

We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We searched 3 databases (MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science) from 2000 until May 2024, and included studies that reported the acceptance rates of pharmacists’ recommendations by prescribers, either by recommendation type (eg, initiation, cessation, dose change) or the reason for the recommendation (eg, drug-related problem identified). JBI tools were used to assess the methodological quality, and a meta-analysis with meta-regression was performed.

Results

There were 21 studies included in the review: 13 studies in the community setting, and 8 in aged care facilities. The acceptance rates of the pharmacists’ recommendations ranged from 42% to 93%, and the implementation rates ranged from 27% to 88%. The setting where the pharmacist conducted the review was found to be a significant determinant in the acceptance of recommendations in the meta-regression model (P = .021), with the highest acceptance and implementation rates reported when pharmacists were integrated into general medical practices (79%; 95% CI, 52%–97%).

Conclusions and Implications

The acceptance of pharmacists’ recommendations following the conduct of medication reviews was highly variable. Multiple factors appear to influence acceptance rates, particularly the setting where the pharmacist conducted the review and the level of collaboration between the pharmacist and prescriber. Future research should explore targeted strategies to improve collaboration and communication between pharmacists and prescribers, such as the integration of pharmacists into general medical practices and aged care facilities.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
非住院老年人处方医师接受药师推荐的影响因素:系统回顾与meta分析
目的:调查非住院老年人用药评价后处方医师接受药师建议的比例及其影响因素。设计:采用meta回归的系统综述和meta分析。环境和参与者:居住在社区或老年护理机构(即非住院)的老年人(平均年龄≥55岁),他们接受了药剂师的个体化用药审查。方法:我们遵循系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目(PRISMA)指南。从2000年到2024年5月,我们检索了3个数据库(MEDLINE、Embase和Web of Science),纳入了报告处方者对药剂师推荐的接受率的研究,包括推荐类型(例如,开始、停止、剂量改变)或推荐原因(例如,确定了与药物相关的问题)。使用JBI工具评估方法学质量,并进行meta分析和meta回归。结果:本综述共纳入21项研究:13项研究在社区环境中进行,8项研究在老年护理机构中进行。药师建议的接受率为42% ~ 93%,执行率为27% ~ 88%。在meta回归模型中,药剂师进行评估的环境被发现是接受建议的一个重要决定因素(P = 0.021),当药剂师被纳入一般医疗实践时,报告的接受率和执行率最高(79%;95% ci, 52%-97%)。结论和意义:接受药师的建议后进行药物评价是高度可变的。影响接受率的因素似乎有很多,尤其是药剂师进行审查的环境以及药剂师和开处方者之间的合作程度。未来的研究应探索有针对性的策略,以改善药师与开处方者之间的协作和沟通,如药师融入一般医疗实践和老年护理机构。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
11.10
自引率
6.60%
发文量
472
审稿时长
44 days
期刊介绍: JAMDA, the official journal of AMDA - The Society for Post-Acute and Long-Term Care Medicine, is a leading peer-reviewed publication that offers practical information and research geared towards healthcare professionals in the post-acute and long-term care fields. It is also a valuable resource for policy-makers, organizational leaders, educators, and advocates. The journal provides essential information for various healthcare professionals such as medical directors, attending physicians, nurses, consultant pharmacists, geriatric psychiatrists, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, physical and occupational therapists, social workers, and others involved in providing, overseeing, and promoting quality
期刊最新文献
Treatment of Restless Legs Syndrome Improves Agitation and Sleep in Persons With Dementia: A Randomized Trial. Editorial Board Table of Contents Clinical Predictors of Mortality in People with Severe Behavioral and Psychological Symptoms of Dementia A Team Coaching Intervention for Dementia Care: Acceptability and Feasibility Study in Care Communities
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1